Quercia Simone
University of Bonn, Institute for Applied Microeconomics (IAME), Adenauerallee 24 - 42, 53113, Bonn, Germany.
J Econ Sci Assoc. 2016 May;2(1):48-59. doi: 10.1007/s40881-015-0021-3. Epub 2016 Jan 11.
Betrayal aversion has been operationalized as the evidence that subjects demand a higher risk premium to take social risks compared to natural risks. This evidence has been first shown by Bohnet and Zeckhauser (2004) using an adaptation of the Becker - DeGroot - Marschak mechanism (BDM, Becker et al. (1964)). We compare their implementation of the BDM mechanism with a new version designed to facilitate subjects' comprehension. We find that, although the two versions produce different distributions of values, the size of betrayal aversion, measured as an average treatment difference between social and natural risk settings, is not different across the two versions. We further show that our implementation is preferable to use in practice as it reduces substantially subjects' mistakes and the likelihood of noisy valuations.
与自然风险相比，受试者在承担社会风险时要求更高的风险溢价。这一证据最早由博内特和泽克豪泽（2004年）通过对贝克尔-德格鲁特-马沙克机制（BDM，贝克尔等人，1964年）进行改编后展示出来。我们将他们对BDM机制的实施与一个旨在便于受试者理解的新版本进行了比较。我们发现，尽管两个版本产生了不同的价值分布，但以社会风险环境和自然风险环境之间的平均处理差异来衡量的背叛厌恶程度，在两个版本中并无差异。我们进一步表明，我们的实施方案在实践中更可取，因为它大大减少了受试者的错误以及出现有噪声估值的可能性。
